As someone who had a full-on grand mal epileptic seizure when i was 11 years old (violent spasms, frothing from the mouth, loss of conciousness) boy am i glad my parents didn't believe such religious nonsense or i might be dead on the side of the road instead of typing this now 23 years later.
@The Batman I'm not religious, but abortion has probably taken much more lives from people with disabilities. edit: or at least from human being with disabilities, if you believe not all human beings are people (which to me, is a dangerous slippery slope)
European Empire a fetus is not a person. It’s a human being in development and every civilized country has legislations that take into account the nuances and the complexity of the issues of abortion. The slippery slope is the one that leads to believing that a blob of cells has more rights than a fully formed, breathing, thinking human being.
As some one who had a couple seizures hope I get the name of the seizure right because I have never spelt it before But it's grand mal seizure or something like that. That shit was bad.
@The Batman For starters up to 4 weeks in development the fetus does not have a heart or brain and it's not so much killing. Do you actually think the sperm hits the egg and bam a baby? It takes time for a lump of cells to become a human life because it takes time to develop.
Telling a 5 year old that Santa isn't real, can be sad. When you have to explain to an adult that Santa isn't real, that's sad for a whole other reason.
Epileptics were never forbidden to marry in the UK, it was just that for a period of time (1937-1971) one could cite epilepsy as grounds for a speedy divorce (i.e. an annulment). It wasn't a great law, but in general we've mostly managed to stay away from signing eugenics programmes into law (unlike many other countries).
Thanks for giving me some tools to deal with the fallacy that "atheism" is a belief structure. Well, I am going to go out and play some non-tennis right now.
In my view, you haven't been given any tools. If one doesn't know something but is still required to take a stance then one has to resort to "believing" (as in "assuming"). You can choose to not engage in a sport but you cannot choose to not speculate about the existence of gods when confronted with the question of whether or not you think there are gods. Your only escape would be to state "I don't know.. " (agnosticism) "... and reject the question". As soon as you say "I don't think there are gods" you committed to an assumption, i.e. you are assuming or in other words "believing". One must not confound the religious notion of "belief" with the "believing" we are forced to do in the absence of knowledge.
It's not a fallacy, Craig just uses the definition of believing that there are no gods which is more common in the philosophy of religion literature and accepted by a large amount of Atheist scholars as well. This doesn't mean it's the only valid definition of course, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a fallacy.
@@thomasridley8675 You don't have to believe in the certainty of facts. You can simply know facts. You cannot know anything about the existence of gods (due to the way gods are defined). That's why you have to resort to believing, i.e., making a guess. There is no escaping from that. In my view, Stephen is comitting an equivocation fallacy; he is using two different notions of "belief" and maintains they are the same.
"I don't see any reason to believe it isn't possible that demon possession can exist. So I'm skeptical of any claim that says it is" Round of applause for Dr. Craig!! He finally understands athiesm. Now he can stop twisting words, redefining things, making false assertions, and intellectually beating around the bush, and intellectual dishonesty as he normally does.
Now what else can’t be ruled out? Loch Ness monster, pixies, ghosts ? Craig would laugh if you said you believed in them, but then he’s a man that thinks the universe was created by a Jewish carpenter.
WLC reads the Bible, it says a man rose from the dead and he believes it. WLC says from his reading on occult practices "it" says they work and he believes it. I think that's all I need to hear. Not much into the scientific method Bill? Plain and simple, we think differently.
I’ve dealt with epilepsy, had years of treatment, ending in brain surgery. Lost a part of my brain. And it ended. If this were a demon...we at least know how to kick its ass. If only religiosity was like epilepsy...and could be cured/halted by medication or in some cases surgery. Heck, given their definition of what drives them, they’re closer to possession than epileptics are. xD
@RationalityRules not sure where your social reach stands but I think debunked could make an amazing game to turn into an app. You'd be able to add more arguments, playing against others around the world, etc. Or some form of hub for debate and and what not. That would be awesome. Ik it's obviously easier said than done but I certainly think that would be cool.
I had my first petit mal epileptic seizure before i was a year old, had them all my life, luckily even though my mum is catholic she didn't burn me at the stake as a changeling.
I recently attended a religious university. A fellow student I knew had epilepsy and I wish I had known more about the stigma and had asked her if she'd ever faced any "unique religious treatment" because of it. She had a service dog that was always with her and I wonder what happened before he was around. Oh well, unknown opportunity missed!
Yes 10 mins is plenty. No need to dignify the opposition (the demons) by taking longer than that to refute WLC idea that the jury is still out on demon possession being a possible explanation for epilepsy.
That's kinda his thing. Gish Galloping and acting like the basis of his claims has been demonstrated to be true by default to give the impression of a strong case, when he pretty much always demonstrated nothing.
He’s a dishonest debater and his own biggest fan. If you haven’t already seen it I recommend his debate with physicist, Sean Carroll. Even Carroll expressed surprise when Craig changed tack in the middle of the debate.
"There's no claim I know how to make that says 'atheism is true' because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition *isn't* true. So I wish you'd get this bit right because there you go again!" -Hitchens to Craig in 2009 debate. Now in 2020, Craig still hasn't got that bit right.
@@MarkoMood Well it can be. Strong/gnostic atheism is indeed the claim that no gods exist as opposed to weak/agnostic atheism which is just the rejection of god claims.
Craig has it right to him. He will always shift the burden of proof until speaking directly to atheists. As long as he's on a christian channel he will always strawman or just totally misrepresent the statements of others. His other trick is saying "They just don't know the literature" or "They can't understand the context".
If I remember correctly, when Hitchens pointed that out, Craig got a bit confused and accused Hitchens of redefining the term to mean Ah-Theism. That was a face palm moment.
Tyson: _"When you're writhing on the ground, and froth coming out of your mouth, you're having an epileptic seizure. You have not been invaded by the devil."_ Craig: _"... I'm sceptical of the claim that there is no demon possession. ... I don't see any reason to think that demon possession is impossible and never takes place. So I'm rather sceptical of that sweeping claim."_ *Nice move: the misquote into the strawman!* For a person who has _philosophy_ as the basis of his enormous theologic stature, he plays fast and loose with logic whenever it suits. *He is intellectually dishonest, at best!*
@@blarglemantheskeptic I'm not going by what you have quoted. What I am going by is the so many times WLC has been corrected, admonished and been shown so many times, even by ones like Sean Carrol that what he posits is completely incorrect, but continues to stupidly claim otherwise than what is demonstrable. WLC is a pathological liar. How do I know he is a pathological liar? Both of my parental units are pathological liars, schooled to be that way by religion that has not shown that one should not lie, but taught by religion how to lie better. And WLC is the same as they are.
And this is exactly why we, rational people, make the distinction between actually possible and not having been shown impossible. Which reminds me, I think the kid has pixies in the brain. Just sing Dancing In The Rain while tap dancing around 1 chair and a stool.
@@stylis666 No no, if it's a demon you just place a line of salt on the ground and it can't cross it. If it's fae in origin contact with cold iron should spook it away. Hand them a genuine bit of iron like a screw or a nail, have them hold it for a bit, and qs they do cross the salt line. If all that happens and the kid still collapses regularly, congrats, it's probably epilepsy, barring more obscure testing.
Or maybe get the people from the show ghost hunters to come in. Hell the narrator from that show could just bore the demons to sleep. Then lastly we could get Kenneth Copeland to suck the demons out with a tube.
@@shanestrickland8481 If I was a producer, you'd have a show to make now 🤘 ofc it'd be satire, but I'd love to see smth like that, instead of the same boring sitcoms and detective dramas.
With catchphrases like "atheistic beliefs", "belief in atheism", "atheism is true" etc etc all Craig is doing is just building a narrative for his predominantly religious audience who have blinkers on and wilfully stick to this narrative despite countless attempts at trying to correct them.
Because theologians and philosophers always try to force their definition of a word on others despite it not being the only definition. You then add the meaning atheism that is in theology and philosophy does not even work well in English and we are English speaker's. They will then appeal to what it meant to the Greeks 3000 years ago. But my response is who cares what the word meant to people 3000 years ago ? Do not get me wrong it's cool to know what words meant to people a long time ago but it means nothing to how people use it now. I only care about how the person uses the word and how they mean it.
@@shanestrickland8481 I think you're just being uncharitable and in fact forcing your own definition on him here. Atheism being defined as the belief that there are no gods and Agnosticism as the lack of belief in any gods is just the way most philosophers of religion (Theist, Atheist and more) use it. I'm pretty sure Craig is going to be aware of the more pop-cultural definitions or something like Dawkins scale, but he just decides to use that definition when reffering to these clips by people who are you to claim it's not how he should use that term?
@@celektus I never said he should not use it that way. It's just trying to make everyone use it in the sense of philosophy and theology is just wrong. If we acknowledge their are more than one meaning of atheism which an honest person would he would no longer have any leg to stand on. People in philosophy and theology make the huge error of trying to put anyone who uses the term atheist in a positive claim category. These people have the nerve to assert what a person means when they use the word to straw man their position. How they use atheism is meaningless to me and most atheist because we are not using it in the sense of philosophy and I have seen plenty of philosophers use their definition to literally straw man other's. I am not telling anyone they can not use atheism in a philosophy and theology sense. What I am saying is do not act like I am or must use the term how you use and do not straw man other's. But hear is the thing just about every theologian and philosopher I have heard uses their philosophy definition to straw man other's including William Lane Craig. The exceptions would be secular theologians and philosophers.
@@shanestrickland8481 Right, so what's the issue then with the statements about "atheistic beliefs" that Craig made in that video when he's just using his definition? The video he's reacting to was literally called something like "best arguments FOR atheism" how would it be unfair for him to repeatedly point out how there's no arguments for atheism in it the way he defines it?
@@celektus Because his statement was directed at someone that does not take the absolute stance on this . I have listened to Neil Degras Tyson stance on stuff like this and he has said out of his own mouth that while he lacks faith in God or demons if we was to ever come across good enough evidence to justify the belief in such things he would then believe. On top of this from what I understand about Neil degras Tyson he does not have a belief at all and is just going by what the evidence suggest. Most atheist are agnostic atheist from what I know and have seen. This is not a belief system to have belief in and Is not something that can be true or false in the sense William Lane Craig is using it. Agnostic atheism is the equivalent of saying I lack faith in God but do not know if one does or does not exist. It's basically saying I am not convinced so this can only be true in the sense I am not convinced and can only be false if I am convinced but deny it. But it's also meaningless what any other atheist thinks because he was supposed to address Neil degras Tyson and Neil's point went way over his head by the looks of it. Yes from what we know epilepsy is not caused by demons and yes Neuroscience has figured this out. Also to my knowledge and appearently his as well demons is not something we have good enough evidence for. From a scientific point of view anything that is not supported by sufficient evidence is meaningless. I have only seen very phew atheist ever use the term atheist in a way of absolutes or a belief system. But coming from someone who has heard Neil's personal views on this subject he see's demon's and a God to not have good evidence. But coming from what he said in an interview if the evidence lead him to God he would except it and in this video William Lane Craig was supposed to address Neil's Degras Tyson's view. As such others people's views are pointless in this discussion. Honestly I try to be Pacific so I hope this clears up the questions.
I like BionicDance's "Greetings fellow space travellers". Many people would be puzzled not realising that we are travelling through space on a spaceship called earth.
As someone who has had epilepsy for decades, thank you for the historical framing. I knew such horrors happened "in the olden days" but I had no idea about those legal restrictions on people with seizure disorders that are within my lifetime.
@@raistlin3462 I would really like to sic my seizure alert service dog on the smug nitwit but that would not be kind and my dog is too much of a pacifist too. Oh well. But seriously, I don't care about one idiot whose mind is back in medieval times but it is disturbing that he has a substantial following for such nonsense.
But I wonder if the 20th century prohibitions on epileptics marrying are based in faith. Sounds a lot like a law that would have been founded in eugenics to me. For the record, I find both types of discrimination against epileptics abhorrent. I just think that there’s a possibility that the more recent examples are not based on a belief in demons. I have not researched it. I think I will go off and look into it, but in the meantime if there’s anyone who knows the answer, I’d love for them to share it.
@@natashaonis Or perhaps the more recent eugenics movement was just a new coat of paint on the old beliefs in demons. The same people who believed in demons a few generations ago could be easily convinced to believe that humanity should be "bred properly" as if humans were livestock and that this is the "modern" "scientific" position. It's the same failure of critical thinking taking place.
My elder brother is neurologically impaired from birth and have been experiencing epileptic seizures all his life, and without continuous medication I don't know where he would be at right now. This first hand experience living with a brother who is practically a handicap laying in bed 24/7 lead me to skepticism against the existence of an all-benevolant God.
Suffering is supposed to speed up spiritual development. I would call it torture by a sadistic god. God could easily end human suffering any time he felt like it. But he won't. That's the straight answer.
I'm not aware if he has already made a more sophisticated argument, but the most appropiate one I have heard him say in a similar context was when "debunking" the "You can't prove a negative" assertion. He claimed that negatives can be proved, like no married bachelors can exist or something like that, so his argument might be something along the lines: some negatives can be proved therefore atheism has the same burden of proof than theism.
Not only that, but Craig also misunderstood epistemology when he says "atheism is unjustified and *therefore* false". As Matt Dillahunty often put, if a claim is unjustified, you have no *confidence* that is true, *but you can't rule out as false either!* One can state a true claim, but without justification, that's indistinguishable from a false claim.
You would expect someone that studied philosophy and have debated for so many years to understand epistemology a little better... That makes me think he was being *intentionally* dishonest by phrasing his statement like that...
I liked when Degrasse Tyson said the more he learned science the he’s been convinced that god isn’t real I finally broke out of Islam when I fell in love with science wither it’s biology, paleontology or astrophysics I’m glad that I knew god isn’t real in my early years because if I haven’t it will be a lot harder to break out of it, religion rules with fear but when I knew about real science and not the religion’s suedo-science I became less fearful of the world I knew that everything has an explanation instead of it being from god But it’s hard being a non muslim in muslim community especially if it’s in Saudi Arabia I wish one day I can escape this horrible oppressive country
Chrioni Sta Ana but the problem in my country is if you announce that you’re no longer a Muslim they literally cut your head with a sword no joke! it’s scary I’m a non-muslim in heart but I act like a muslim so people won’t report me I’m planning to move to the USA it’ll be easy for me because I was born in Kansas (tbh I don’t if me being born in there would make it easier to migrate to the country) and I don’t know if I move in the USA I’ll still have to obey Saudi Arabia’s rules because I’m a Saudi Arabian citizen, who knows
I grew out of religion when i was 15 and finally pronounced myself an atheist...(orthodox cristianity).Good thing im in a developed country and therefore i didn't experience any pressure from my fellow religious citizens.
@@bradweir6993 I was thinking of what it looks like from inside Craig's head. This is just a fun ad hominem but I think he sees himself as a glowing beacon of spiritual fabulousness, close to a second coming.
Igbon5 How is it even possible someone put Dr. before Craigs name. That is blasphemy towards science. And what a bootlicker is that Cameron Bertuzzi !?!
Thanks, Stephen! This fellow ape found this video incredibly concise, informative, elegant and humorous. As a neurology resident practicing in a country where people tend to be more religious than not, I found myself in need of explaining that epilepsy has nothing to do with the soul, but rather with the brain. Indeed, some (if not all) myths are worth debunking out of respect for the human intellect.
From the perspective of a researcher in the field, the "demon theory" of epilepsy is just hilarious!! Keep your cool and contain your giggles, since you're in the frontline!
Most of Muslims' arguments for Islam are that there are so many miracles in the Quran and that this means Allah must have been responsible for those miracles.
If you accept the Anti-Christ, then all versions of the Christian religion are potentially demonic which makes the all powerful god Yahweh powerless and puts you back at zero.
@@JamesRichardWiley i think you missed Peter's point of trying to highlight the minor instance of misspeak from RR at 3:52 ( and/or at 8:42 and/or at 9:40 ) ;-)
I cant believe Craig is actually considering demon posession to be possible... the further this series continues, the more credebility Craig looses for me.
It's really weird to me. Some people will just call Craig an idiot, but I actually disagree with that. I think he is a well educated person with high intelligence. I don't understand how he can hold some of the beliefs that he does.
Christians love to claim that their invisible friend is all powerful, and all wise but cannot explain why he allows Satan, his mortal enemy, to torment his beloved children. That's stupid.
Thank you guys for my copy of Debunked. I’m not playing the game yet I’m just reading through the cards trying to educate myself. It’s exactly what I was hoping for.
Throughout all of his main debates with Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, and now Tyson, WLC has argued the exact same points every time. Even after being debunked and unpacked, WLC's arguments remain. It's as if he has the inability to learn new things while accepting what he believes may be incorrect. Edit: I know Tyson and WLC were not specifically debating. I just mean the argument.
@@PittsburghSonido ... or maybe just because someone responds to an argument doesn't mean they've refuted it and Craig is entitled to hold his position if he doesn't find their arguments convincing.
@@andrewwells6323 That may be correct in some instances but for someone in Craig's position, who makes argumentative claims and alleged refutations he should be held to a standard that any philosopher or other debater would be in defending a position. Craig fails and fails hard.
@@Igbon5 He should but people on the internet hold him to a far higher standard than any other debater, because have emotional problems with and bias against what he says. *"Craig fails and fails hard. "* Example?
William Lane Craig will never concede defeat because his only task seems to be to sow doubt, no matter how absurd, so he can continue earning a living in his field. I've met theologians more intellectual than he appears to be and always come away feeling that if they hadn't invested a lifetime in these religious careers, they'd have no trouble admitting that it's all rubbish.
I have to wonder if Craig’s misinterpretation of these atheist arguments are genuine misunderstandings or if he is purposely putting up straw men. I’m leaning toward he does it on purpose, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Craig’s condescending delivery is annoying at the best of times but his defense of demonic possession is thoroughly comical. I guess without them there’d be no need for house calls.
"An argument for atheism" "Belief in atheism" What? How can someone give an argument that they don't believe in god? Would the entire argument be "I don't believe in God"? How does one believe in not believing in god/gods? This baffles me...
It seems to be a tactic to try to put atheism of the same level as theism, to distract from the fact that basically all arguments for theism are misdirection of one form or another: "prove that god doesn't exist", "there is no reason to believe that Atheism is true", "There is no good evidence for atheism" etc....are just attempts to muddle the waters and should warrant an automatic disqualification from any form of discourse for violating a fundamental rule of discourse.
@@Sir_Osis abloodsucker.. or like how Craig would like to put it - "aaaabloodsucker". It is simple, just prefix with an "a" and according to Craig, you can start a whole new belief system.
I’ve had four grand mal seizures in my life but thankfully now my epilepsy is controlled and haven’t had a seizure for over a year now and hopefully my last seizure will be my last. It gripes me that there are people who think this. If he lived centuries ago, this guy would have probably thought it was okay to cut open my head in order to get the demons out (trepanning) and would have been happy to discriminate against me or would have thought I was a werewolf.
A friend of me had at least one seizure a day when he was a child. Than medication was developed that helped him for a long time, when the medication stopped working in his mid 20s he got a neurostimulator (DBS) and he hadnt had a seizure for years now. And that all got developed by science and brave scientists while the church did the same shit they do since hundrets of years, praying for the seizures to stop... and an occasional exorzism once in a while... and we all know how good prayer works.
Why anyone respects Craig as a "serious theologian" is beyond me. Yeah he's not Ray Comfort or your average "Atheist Experience" idiot caller. But at the end of the day, he's just as vacuous, just as delusional, and just as dishonest.
I am an atheist myself, and I find the definition the Stephen given of atheism as nonsense, if lacking believing what makes us atheist than a rock and 🌲 will be atheist, you don't have to have anything to lack it, I don't see any problem saying Atheism is believing that there is no God.
I honestly disagree with your New Atheist, lacktheist take on Atheism, which is more compatible with agnosticism, and the fact that even Cosmic Skeptic still often uses the same definition despite studying philosophy at Oxford, is just weird. Still, in his case I have noticed he's begun shying away from that view. I guess he finally assumed philosophical atheism. That's neither here nor there in this case, however I am puzzled by that intellectually lazy burden shifting. You are essentially doing the same thing as William Lane Craig, albeit to a MUCH lesser degree. But why would you do it at all? Especially given it is not difficult at all to defend the position that there is no rational reason to believe in demons and even less so to believe in God. As a matter of fact, I would go one step further and argue that, in this case in particular, it isn't at all difficult to defend the position that there ARE no such things as demons. In fact, you kind of did argue just that at moments in this video. Btw...I'm really not saying this just to be difficult, I merely wanted to make a constructive criticism, as I so often see New Atheists giving fodder to theists, when it is completely not necessary. It's a self-inflicted wound. The other, definitely more subjective opinion I have on this view is: it's just bizarre to me! Granted...that might be connected to the way my brain functions, but I cannot comprehend merely lacking belief altogether. If I don't believe demons exist, I have a reason for disbelieving that. Of course, I'm not 100% sure, but regardless...I don't just lack any and all belief about that proposition. When I say: I don't believe in demons, I don't just mean: I got nothin'. I mean: I thought about it, assessed the evidence and came to belief that demons almost certainly do not exist.
Man...I was just trying to eat some tasty sugar puffs when that first clip started playing. I'm still making my way through the sugar puffs but it doesn't feel the same now.
Here in the USA.. we still have many many church denominations sects that believe epilepsy and other medical conditions are demonic. My sons mother was a sever grand mal epileptic. Her seizures were so severe that any of them could take her life.. medication did not control them. One day at a little carnival type fair in our community being put on by some local Pentecostal churches..she and I was passing through decided to play a couple games and get a bite to eat. She unfortunately had a seizure while we are there.. and you would not believe how many of these pastors and other nutcases came over to try to put hands on her and pray and command the demons to leave her. I use to carry ASP , telescopic baton with a metal head that was also a stun gun. I literally had to bring it out and threaten by force to get these people to leave her alone. They wanted to seize her up to cast out the demons the delusions their religion causes them to believe in.it is at that point where religion is not just harmful to others but themselves..they are no longer attached to reality. I broke one guys hand with it because he refused to back off. Meanwhile I am trying my best to treat her for her seizure...keep he safe during the seizure and keep her safe from these nut bags. Religion has not changed or advanced out of this.
Imagine coming to and finding out that all those strange men had been laying hands on you... speaking as a woman, that's creepy as fuck. Good on you for sticking up for her.
I have epilepsy (mTLE) , but Ive never had a grand mal seizure, rather focal ones. It doesnt look like what most people think of as an epileptic attack. It starts with a strong deja vu and progresses from there, but not into a generalised seizure. You feel extremely sleepy weak and tired after an attack. The attack knocks me out for 3 dayssometimes, and my memory is obliterated. Like dementia. Its one of the most common epilepsies. Just thought to post this to kind of broaden the perception on what epilepsy looks like
@@losttribe3001 LOL. 5150 refers to the California law code for the temporary, involuntary psychiatric commitment of individuals who present a danger to themselves or others due to signs of mental illness. It has been more generally applied to people who are considered threateningly unstable or “crazy.”
A few points. Tyson may not have explicitly said that demon possession never occurs, but he implied it by lumping it in with "myths". Secondly, one of the definitions of "atheism" is disbelief, which is separate from non belief. Penn Jillette once wrote an article about how he actively believes there is no God, and he distinguishes that's from not believing there is a God. It's common to use agnostic to as a "not believing, not disbelieving" and atheism to actually believing there is no God.
The only thing gets me more frustrated than a fundamentalist view of the world, is an apologetic religious person bullshitting people about religion and merge it with some theories of science to prove their point. I think at a certain point they do know they're wrong and still they are just poisoning the well...
I recently had an online conversation with a Catholic. We both despise Trump and the Evangelical rightwing who support him. But, I made the claim that he could not criticize their faith because what they believe is supported by faith just like his and you cannot argue rationally on the validity of their faith since they also have metaphysical beliefs. He was not pleased and filled his response with micro aggressions like calling me a "devout atheist". LOL!
"This is not an area of my expertise," … "but I'm going to act like it is" 😆 This guy needs to stop putting words in other people's mouths... While people are still killed in Africa for witchcraft, this clown acts like it's no big deal. Shame on him.😑
I like how he says "demonic possession isn't impossible" but doesn't show anything to sustain his claim and says Atheism is false because they don't have anything to disprove a god. I'm like what do you want? A non-foto of a non-existing god? 🤣🤣🤣.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 I love when theist don't understand that the only way of disproving god is disproving their arguments of God with logic and observation.
Disproving the existence of god is as hard as disproving the existence of the entire universe. He is invisible and does absolutely nothing while also doing absolutely everything at the same time. No matter how chaotic the world is, it's all according to gods mysterious plan. Oh, kids getting bone cancer? They inherited the sins of their parents. We all are sinners from the very beginning because magic apples. What's that? Thousands of people get killed by a tsunami? They were all created soulless and god just killed them so he can prove his greatness. Seriously. We don't need to make up an invisible enemy to know that life sucks. Why not just skip a step and say "the universe" instead of god?
@@Depressed_Spider ok "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Do you have any evidence of God or is just You can't disprove it therefore is real? I can't disprove that there isn't a tea pot between earth and Mars. That doesn't mean there is a tea pot...
It says one commet but there is no comment. Hey RR, I'm responding to another video of WLC with Cameron, which is actually a response to you. Maybe check out that video they made?
7:20 Good example of when "lacking belief" becomes an active claim of non-existence. Unless you are going to provide some evidence disproving the existence of demons, then your claim that there is no practice to have an expertise in is as baseless as other's unsupported claims of demons' existence. 9:58 Yes, Tyson did, for all practical purposes, say that possession never occurs. His tone, demeanor, and words all imply that he totally and completely dismisses the idea of possession being something that really happens. You're being intellectually dishonest by pretending otherwise. He may not have literally said the words, but he might as well have.
@@ouisellmedia If Tyson or Rules don't want to be asked to prove absurd things, then they shouldn't make absurd claims. Doesn't matter if you claim existence or non-existence, an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim and basically the opposite of passive lack of belief.
@@jayjeckel I get you though I'm just saying RULES isn't making absurd claims but rather acting in response to the absurd claims made already but I'll like to know what the absurd claims RULES is making is? Please
@@jayjeckel to prove the nonexistence of a thing one would need to debunk a presupposition of existential claims about that thing itself because the burden of proof will be on the proponent of the existence of the said belief to make it true and not the other way round In the first place is all I'm saying. For some perspective though, I'm a Christian but I totally understand Stephen's argument.
@@ouisellmedia When he claimed that the discipline of demonology doesn't actually exist, implicitly claiming that demons don't exist, which is an active and unsubstantiated claim, as opposed to passively lacking belief in existence of demons. Considering but a few minutes before he pulled the "atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief" card, I found it humorous how quickly the "lack of belief" idea gets abandoned when not being used to dodge criticism.
The Occult summon dark creatures huh well then we all better hope they don't end up summoning Cthulhu😅 if he ends up being real then we are all screwed.
So maybe instead of warning people that certain scenes in a film may cause an epileptic fit, we should instead put warnings that this film might trigger demonic possession?
Love your videos but the point on Craig using the definition of atheism wrong is a misunderstanding. Positive atheism is how the word is used in academia, both in theology and philosophy. Just go check Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on atheism and agnosticism.
"Just go check Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on atheism and agnosticism." Words have uses, not definitions. People who don't believe in god are atheists. THAT'S how it is commonly used. The tail does not wag the dog. Academia does not decide on how words are used. The general population does. "Gay" has a couple of meanings now because THAT'S how the word is used, not because of something "academia" decided. You also make the mistake of thinking that ALL of academia uses the word the same way, which is silly. Craig uses the definition that is easiest to attack. He just comes across as a snivelling wimp every time I see him speak. He stumbles through some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard.
One thing to remember is that the philosophical definition of atheism is the belief that no god exists, as such it is most likely that WLC is using that definition rather than the colloquial one when he speaks aboit atheist beliefs and such.
_"If_ we equate myths to falsehoods we need to _expose_ them." Nice start there, Billy "my name is Dishonesty" Craig. First off, if don't equate them, then myths are still not true. You are the only one confused about that:"...with respect to demon possession, [stutters] I'm skeptical...". If only you had stopped there and you were truthful. Second off, why only falsehoods? I mean, you first need to know if it's true or false, don't you? You should have said something along the lines of:" When presented with a story, we should be skeptical and try and think critically. When you're told of magical or miraculous things that have never been verified scientifically, that should be a giant red flag. You don't want to be the gullible moron who says to be skeptical one second and says he believes in resurrection the next."
WLC is one of the most disingenuous people involved in apologetics. Every fallacy he spouts (and he spouts a lot) have been pointed out to him and it's been explained to him why they are fallacious numerous, numerous times. But he just keeps repeating them.
Can someone enlighten me on how people who believe in demons and possession view people who commit crimes while claiming to be possessed? How much burden of the crime should be on the demon and how much on the human?
Craig is the king of the straw men, isn’t he? In fact, I might be so bold as to say that Craig is the GOD of the straw men. He has certainly gathered all the straw men together under his control.
* has paranoid schizophrenia * * performs exorcism * ****DOESN'T WORK**** * calls homecare * * lets them take care of the job * "Praise God you were healed!" (He didn't "heal" me, my meds took control of it.)
As someone who had a full-on grand mal epileptic seizure when i was 11 years old (violent spasms, frothing from the mouth, loss of conciousness) boy am i glad my parents didn't believe such religious nonsense or i might be dead on the side of the road instead of typing this now 23 years later.
@The Batman I'm not religious, but abortion has probably taken much more lives from people with disabilities.
edit: or at least from human being with disabilities, if you believe not all human beings are people (which to me, is a dangerous slippery slope)
European Empire a fetus is not a person. It’s a human being in development and every civilized country has legislations that take into account the nuances and the complexity of the issues of abortion. The slippery slope is the one that leads to believing that a blob of cells has more rights than a fully formed, breathing, thinking human being.
As some one who had a couple seizures hope I get the name of the seizure right because I have never spelt it before But it's grand mal seizure or something like that.
That shit was bad.
@The Batman For starters up to 4 weeks in development the fetus does not have a heart or brain and it's not so much killing.
Do you actually think the sperm hits the egg and bam a baby?
It takes time for a lump of cells to become a human life because it takes time to develop.
The Batman So what if it’s alive? Just because it’s alive doesn’t mean it’s bad to kill it.
The fact that people would listen to Craig over Neil deGrasse Tyson, it's beyond me.
It was too good to see his debate with Sean Carroll.
I saw it, and it really was refreshing. But it also made it impossible to listen to Craig anymore.
Telling a 5 year old that Santa isn't real, can be sad. When you have to explain to an adult that Santa isn't real, that's sad for a whole other reason.
Epileptics were never forbidden to marry in the UK, it was just that for a period of time (1937-1971) one could cite epilepsy as grounds for a speedy divorce (i.e. an annulment). It wasn't a great law, but in general we've mostly managed to stay away from signing eugenics programmes into law (unlike many other countries).
Thanks for giving me some tools to deal with the fallacy that "atheism" is a belief structure. Well, I am going to go out and play some non-tennis right now.
Non-tennis just happens to be my kind of sport, too. Let's play a couple of games in non-liverpool ok
In my view, you haven't been given any tools. If one doesn't know something but is still required to take a stance then one has to resort to "believing" (as in "assuming"). You can choose to not engage in a sport but you cannot choose to not speculate about the existence of gods when confronted with the question of whether or not you think there are gods. Your only escape would be to state "I don't know.. " (agnosticism) "... and reject the question". As soon as you say "I don't think there are gods" you committed to an assumption, i.e. you are assuming or in other words "believing".
One must not confound the religious notion of "belief" with the "believing" we are forced to do in the absence of knowledge.
I think you are confusing belief in
the certainty of faith.
And belief in a certainty of
observable facts.
It's not a fallacy, Craig just uses the definition of believing that there are no gods which is more common in the philosophy of religion literature and accepted by a large amount of Atheist scholars as well. This doesn't mean it's the only valid definition of course, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a fallacy.
@@thomasridley8675 You don't have to believe in the certainty of facts. You can simply know facts. You cannot know anything about the existence of gods (due to the way gods are defined). That's why you have to resort to believing, i.e., making a guess. There is no escaping from that.
In my view, Stephen is comitting an equivocation fallacy; he is using two different notions of "belief" and maintains they are the same.
"I don't see any reason to believe it isn't possible that demon possession can exist. So I'm skeptical of any claim that says it is"
Round of applause for Dr. Craig!! He finally understands athiesm. Now he can stop twisting words, redefining things, making false assertions, and intellectually beating around the bush, and intellectual dishonesty as he normally does.
Now what else can’t be ruled out? Loch Ness monster, pixies, ghosts ? Craig would laugh if you said you believed in them, but then he’s a man that thinks the universe was created by a Jewish carpenter.
Jeebus, inventor of drywall.
WLC reads the Bible, it says a man rose from the dead and he believes it. WLC says from his reading on occult practices "it" says they work and he believes it. I think that's all I need to hear. Not much into the scientific method Bill? Plain and simple, we think differently.
Bill reads something.
He believes it.
Therefore it's true.
I’ve dealt with epilepsy, had years of treatment, ending in brain surgery. Lost a part of my brain. And it ended. If this were a demon...we at least know how to kick its ass.
If only religiosity was like epilepsy...and could be cured/halted by medication or in some cases surgery.
Heck, given their definition of what drives them, they’re closer to possession than epileptics are. xD
I have controlled my epilepsy completely with diet. You're right, if it had been a demon in there, I don't think that ketosis would have exorcised it.
As someone with epilepsy, I'm incredibly thankful to be alive now and not 100 years ago.
@RationalityRules not sure where your social reach stands but I think debunked could make an amazing game to turn into an app. You'd be able to add more arguments, playing against others around the world, etc. Or some form of hub for debate and and what not. That would be awesome. Ik it's obviously easier said than done but I certainly think that would be cool.
Craig lookin a lot like palpatine while he cringes watching tyson speak.
I had my first petit mal epileptic seizure before i was a year old, had them all my life, luckily even though my mum is catholic she didn't burn me at the stake as a changeling.
I recently attended a religious university. A fellow student I knew had epilepsy and I wish I had known more about the stigma and had asked her if she'd ever faced any "unique religious treatment" because of it. She had a service dog that was always with her and I wonder what happened before he was around. Oh well, unknown opportunity missed!
At last, someone exposes what WLC did in his "debunk of atheist best arguments". I was exactly thinking that : WLC never answer the point :(
According to epilepsy.org.uk the law making it illegal to marry with epilepsy in the uk is a myth. Otherwise great vid as usual.
What's with the fluctuating audio
Dishonesty is William Lane Craig's expertise, not demon possession and Cameron can vouch for it.
I quite honestly love these 10 minute commentary videos format.
As do I
As do I
Either do I
I would prefer it to be 30 min but it's still great
Yes 10 mins is plenty. No need to dignify the opposition (the demons) by taking longer than that to refute WLC idea that the jury is still out on demon possession being a possible explanation for epilepsy.
Notice how Craig never gave one piece of evidence for demonic possession
That's kinda his thing. Gish Galloping and acting like the basis of his claims has been demonstrated to be true by default to give the impression of a strong case, when he pretty much always demonstrated nothing.
He’s a dishonest debater and his own biggest fan. If you haven’t already seen it I recommend his debate with physicist, Sean Carroll. Even Carroll expressed surprise when Craig changed tack in the middle of the debate.
Craig NEVER gives evidence for any of his claims.
"A knowing smile doesn't actually require knowledge... Just a mouth." - TheraminTrees
C Nault he is making good cash so he better do whatever it takes to keep it going.
"There's no claim I know how to make that says 'atheism is true' because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition *isn't* true. So I wish you'd get this bit right because there you go again!" -Hitchens to Craig in 2009 debate.
Now in 2020, Craig still hasn't got that bit right.
Hitchens completely exposed and shattered Craig in that debate, yet Craig didn't seem to learn from it.
But atheism isn't a statement that a certain proposition isn't true. That would be a positive claim which carries the burden of proof.
@@MarkoMood Well it can be. Strong/gnostic atheism is indeed the claim that no gods exist as opposed to weak/agnostic atheism which is just the rejection of god claims.
Craig has it right to him. He will always shift the burden of proof until speaking directly to atheists. As long as he's on a christian channel he will always strawman or just totally misrepresent the statements of others. His other trick is saying "They just don't know the literature" or "They can't understand the context".
If I remember correctly, when Hitchens pointed that out, Craig got a bit confused and accused Hitchens of redefining the term to mean Ah-Theism. That was a face palm moment.
Tyson: _"When you're writhing on the ground, and froth coming out of your mouth, you're having an epileptic seizure. You have not been invaded by the devil."_
Craig: _"... I'm sceptical of the claim that there is no demon possession. ... I don't see any reason to think that demon possession is impossible and never takes place. So I'm rather sceptical of that sweeping claim."_
*Nice move: the misquote into the strawman!*
For a person who has _philosophy_ as the basis of his enormous theologic stature, he plays fast and loose with logic whenever it suits. *He is intellectually dishonest, at best!*
Not just intellectually. I would posit that he is pathologically dishonest.
@@rentiap that may be true (I agree with you), but isn't sufficiently in evidence in my quotes to get there on that alone.
@@blarglemantheskeptic I'm not going by what you have quoted.
What I am going by is the so many times WLC has been corrected, admonished and been shown so many times, even by ones like Sean Carrol that what he posits is completely incorrect, but continues to stupidly claim otherwise than what is demonstrable. WLC is a pathological liar.
How do I know he is a pathological liar?
Both of my parental units are pathological liars, schooled to be that way by religion that has not shown that one should not lie, but taught by religion how to lie better.
And WLC is the same as they are.
@@rentiap I wasn't disagreeing.
@@blarglemantheskeptic yes, I got that. Cheers.
Craig said he was sceptical... lmao
Nice one
yeah the way Craig phrased that entire thing was some serious mental gymnastics
@@masternerd64 That's an accurate summary of his career and public personality.
LOL
I’m skeptical of his skepticism
Parent: Doctor what is causing my child’s seizures?
Doctor: It’s either epilepsy or Demon possession?
Parent: CAN I SEE A REAL DOCTOR NOW?????
And this is exactly why we, rational people, make the distinction between actually possible and not having been shown impossible.
Which reminds me, I think the kid has pixies in the brain. Just sing Dancing In The Rain while tap dancing around 1 chair and a stool.
@@stylis666 No no, if it's a demon you just place a line of salt on the ground and it can't cross it. If it's fae in origin contact with cold iron should spook it away. Hand them a genuine bit of iron like a screw or a nail, have them hold it for a bit, and qs they do cross the salt line. If all that happens and the kid still collapses regularly, congrats, it's probably epilepsy, barring more obscure testing.
seizures can be of various kinds and causes, but dekons aint one of em
Everytime I hear the religious bang on about demonic possession I automatically think; ‘who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!’
Or maybe get the people from the show ghost hunters to come in.
Hell the narrator from that show could just bore the demons to sleep.
Then lastly we could get Kenneth Copeland to suck the demons out with a tube.
I just edge towards the exit and try to get away from them.
@@shanestrickland8481
If I was a producer, you'd have a show to make now 🤘 ofc it'd be satire, but I'd love to see smth like that, instead of the same boring sitcoms and detective dramas.
Denomic possession
"I'm rather skeptical"
I'm skeptical of your skepticism
Its existence or its validity?
With catchphrases like "atheistic beliefs", "belief in atheism", "atheism is true" etc etc all Craig is doing is just building a narrative for his predominantly religious audience who have blinkers on and wilfully stick to this narrative despite countless attempts at trying to correct them.
Because theologians and philosophers always try to force their definition of a word on others despite it not being the only definition.
You then add the meaning atheism that is in theology and philosophy does not even work well in English and we are English speaker's.
They will then appeal to what it meant to the Greeks 3000 years ago.
But my response is who cares what the word meant to people 3000 years ago ?
Do not get me wrong it's cool to know what words meant to people a long time ago but it means nothing to how people use it now.
I only care about how the person uses the word and how they mean it.
@@shanestrickland8481 I think you're just being uncharitable and in fact forcing your own definition on him here. Atheism being defined as the belief that there are no gods and Agnosticism as the lack of belief in any gods is just the way most philosophers of religion (Theist, Atheist and more) use it. I'm pretty sure Craig is going to be aware of the more pop-cultural definitions or something like Dawkins scale, but he just decides to use that definition when reffering to these clips by people who are you to claim it's not how he should use that term?
@@celektus I never said he should not use it that way.
It's just trying to make everyone use it in the sense of philosophy and theology is just wrong.
If we acknowledge their are more than one meaning of atheism which an honest person would he would no longer have any leg to stand on.
People in philosophy and theology make the huge error of trying to put anyone who uses the term atheist in a positive claim category.
These people have the nerve to assert what a person means when they use the word to straw man their position.
How they use atheism is meaningless to me and most atheist because we are not using it in the sense of philosophy and I have seen plenty of philosophers use their definition to literally straw man other's.
I am not telling anyone they can not use atheism in a philosophy and theology sense.
What I am saying is do not act like I am or must use the term how you use and do not straw man other's.
But hear is the thing just about every theologian and philosopher I have heard uses their philosophy definition to straw man other's including William Lane Craig.
The exceptions would be secular theologians and philosophers.
@@shanestrickland8481 Right, so what's the issue then with the statements about "atheistic beliefs" that Craig made in that video when he's just using his definition? The video he's reacting to was literally called something like "best arguments FOR atheism" how would it be unfair for him to repeatedly point out how there's no arguments for atheism in it the way he defines it?
@@celektus Because his statement was directed at someone that does not take the absolute stance on this .
I have listened to Neil Degras Tyson stance on stuff like this and he has said out of his own mouth that while he lacks faith in God or demons if we was to ever come across good enough evidence to justify the belief in such things he would then believe.
On top of this from what I understand about Neil degras Tyson he does not have a belief at all and is just going by what the evidence suggest.
Most atheist are agnostic atheist from what I know and have seen.
This is not a belief system to have belief in and Is not something that can be true or false in the sense William Lane Craig is using it.
Agnostic atheism is the equivalent of saying I lack faith in God but do not know if one does or does not exist.
It's basically saying I am not convinced so this can only be true in the sense I am not convinced and can only be false if I am convinced but deny it.
But it's also meaningless what any other atheist thinks because he was supposed to address Neil degras Tyson and Neil's point went way over his head by the looks of it.
Yes from what we know epilepsy is not caused by demons and yes Neuroscience has figured this out.
Also to my knowledge and appearently his as well demons is not something we have good enough evidence for.
From a scientific point of view anything that is not supported by sufficient evidence is meaningless.
I have only seen very phew atheist ever use the term atheist in a way of absolutes or a belief system.
But coming from someone who has heard Neil's personal views on this subject he see's demon's and a God to not have good evidence.
But coming from what he said in an interview if the evidence lead him to God he would except it and in this video William Lane Craig was supposed to address Neil's Degras Tyson's view.
As such others people's views are pointless in this discussion.
Honestly I try to be Pacific so I hope this clears up the questions.
According to my youth pastor, after reading Harry Potter I was an expert in the occult.
aaaaaaaaaaaand im a pagan after reading percy jackson... touche...
@@hakureikura9052 Lol. Percy Jackson and Harry Potter are my favourite series. Guess I can get some bonus points for heresy.😂
A previous professor of mine said Pokemon Go used augmented reality to bind demons to your soul. I kinda stopped paying attention to him after that.
@@VoidTower_ Sounds pretty cool to me.
"Charizard evolved into a _the DEVIL_ !"
Avada Kadavara would apply here.
No one else calls me an ape quite so endearingly as you Stephen ^_^
I like BionicDance's "Greetings fellow space travellers". Many people would be puzzled not realising that we are travelling through space on a spaceship called earth.
I get especially chuffed myself when he says it.
I’ve always been an Apeman. Like in The Kinks song !
As someone who has had epilepsy for decades, thank you for the historical framing. I knew such horrors happened "in the olden days" but I had no idea about those legal restrictions on people with seizure disorders that are within my lifetime.
So how does it feels hearing people like WLC making a case or at least a justification for it in the current 21st century?
@@raistlin3462 I would really like to sic my seizure alert service dog on the smug nitwit but that would not be kind and my dog is too much of a pacifist too. Oh well.
But seriously, I don't care about one idiot whose mind is back in medieval times but it is disturbing that he has a substantial following for such nonsense.
But I wonder if the 20th century prohibitions on epileptics marrying are based in faith. Sounds a lot like a law that would have been founded in eugenics to me. For the record, I find both types of discrimination against epileptics abhorrent. I just think that there’s a possibility that the more recent examples are not based on a belief in demons. I have not researched it. I think I will go off and look into it, but in the meantime if there’s anyone who knows the answer, I’d love for them to share it.
@@natashaonis Or perhaps the more recent eugenics movement was just a new coat of paint on the old beliefs in demons. The same people who believed in demons a few generations ago could be easily convinced to believe that humanity should be "bred properly" as if humans were livestock and that this is the "modern" "scientific" position. It's the same failure of critical thinking taking place.
My elder brother is neurologically impaired from birth and have been experiencing epileptic seizures all his life, and without continuous medication I don't know where he would be at right now. This first hand experience living with a brother who is practically a handicap laying in bed 24/7 lead me to skepticism against the existence of an all-benevolant God.
Suffering is supposed to speed up spiritual development.
I would call it torture by a sadistic god.
God could easily end human suffering any time he felt like it.
But he won't.
That's the straight answer.
The worst part of this is, that Craig has a doctorad in philosophy. So he should be well aware of the burden of proof and how it works.
I'm not aware if he has already made a more sophisticated argument, but the most appropiate one I have heard him say in a similar context was when "debunking" the "You can't prove a negative" assertion. He claimed that negatives can be proved, like no married bachelors can exist or something like that, so his argument might be something along the lines: some negatives can be proved therefore atheism has the same burden of proof than theism.
Yeah but it’s from the University of Birmingham. So he may just as well have found his doctorate in a cereal packet.
@@theinquisitor5518 😂 pure gold!
Not only that, but Craig also misunderstood epistemology when he says "atheism is unjustified and *therefore* false".
As Matt Dillahunty often put, if a claim is unjustified, you have no *confidence* that is true, *but you can't rule out as false either!* One can state a true claim, but without justification, that's indistinguishable from a false claim.
You would expect someone that studied philosophy and have debated for so many years to understand epistemology a little better...
That makes me think he was being *intentionally* dishonest by phrasing his statement like that...
I liked when Degrasse Tyson said the more he learned science the he’s been convinced that god isn’t real
I finally broke out of Islam when I fell in love with science wither it’s biology, paleontology or astrophysics
I’m glad that I knew god isn’t real in my early years because if I haven’t it will be a lot harder to break out of it, religion rules with fear but when I knew about real science and not the religion’s suedo-science I became less fearful of the world I knew that everything has an explanation instead of it being from god
But it’s hard being a non muslim in muslim community especially if it’s in Saudi Arabia I wish one day I can escape this horrible oppressive country
Man, we have the same story but I'm on Christianity. I wish I could escape.
Chrioni Sta Ana but the problem in my country is if you announce that you’re no longer a Muslim they literally cut your head with a sword no joke! it’s scary
I’m a non-muslim in heart but I act like a muslim so people won’t report me
I’m planning to move to the USA it’ll be easy for me because I was born in Kansas (tbh I don’t if me being born in there would make it easier to migrate to the country) and I don’t know if I move in the USA I’ll still have to obey Saudi Arabia’s rules because I’m a Saudi Arabian citizen, who knows
@@xvor_tex8577 Be careful man.I wish you luck.
I grew out of religion when i was 15 and finally pronounced myself an atheist...(orthodox cristianity).Good thing im in a developed country and therefore i didn't experience any pressure from my fellow religious citizens.
Nikola Balevic Thank You!,
I’m 16 y/o now, it looks like we got out of religion in similar age :)
Craig reframes all the time ad then gloats in his own glow of smartiness.
Very faint glow.
@@bradweir6993
I was thinking of what it looks like from inside Craig's head.
This is just a fun ad hominem but I think he sees himself as a glowing beacon of spiritual fabulousness, close to a second coming.
Craig is a huckster and nothing more.
Not smartiness. Smarmyness.
Igbon5 How is it even possible someone put Dr. before Craigs name. That is blasphemy towards science.
And what a bootlicker is that Cameron Bertuzzi !?!
Love how Craig thinks investigating demonic possession is an important field of inquiry 😂😂
Thanks, Stephen! This fellow ape found this video incredibly concise, informative, elegant and humorous. As a neurology resident practicing in a country where people tend to be more religious than not, I found myself in need of explaining that epilepsy has nothing to do with the soul, but rather with the brain. Indeed, some (if not all) myths are worth debunking out of respect for the human intellect.
From the perspective of a researcher in the field, the "demon theory" of epilepsy is just hilarious!! Keep your cool and contain your giggles, since you're in the frontline!
"With respect to demon possession".
Ehem, no. No respect for demon possession.
I have the ability to create my own mysteries and then try to solve them.
The mystery religions are exactly that.
These thumbnails are gettin outta hand.
You mean onto body
I'll have to up my game :p
Rationality Rules Keep em coming !
😂 they're awesome!
Can you responce to some Islamic claims.
You may have to check his older videos. Stephen has posted a myriad of videos debunking Islamic beliefs.
I plan to hit some within a few months : )
@@rationalityrules thanks mate!
Most of Muslims' arguments for Islam are that there are so many miracles in the Quran and that this means Allah must have been responsible for those miracles.
@@brucewayne7875 some of so called seculars making objective morality argument, someone needs to response to that, its so stupid.
I think these series are my favourite since i started following you a few years a go. Really loving it. Thanks!
Cheers, Roeliene! I've enjoyed making them.
All of WLC's videos should be dubbed with a vintage Scooby Doo laugh track.
‘Renowned theologian” LMFAO
A theologian is a person who knows the mind of a god at the PhD level by sourcing a man made book.
Either that, or they are a trader on the snake oil futures market.
"Denomic Possession" possessed by religious denominations?
If you accept the Anti-Christ, then all versions of the Christian religion are potentially demonic
which makes the all powerful god Yahweh powerless
and puts you back at zero.
@@JamesRichardWiley i think you missed Peter's point of trying to highlight the minor instance of misspeak from RR at 3:52 ( and/or at 8:42 and/or at 9:40 ) ;-)
I cant believe Craig is actually considering demon posession to be possible... the further this series continues, the more credebility Craig looses for me.
He had any to lose?
It's really weird to me. Some people will just call Craig an idiot, but I actually disagree with that. I think he is a well educated person with high intelligence. I don't understand how he can hold some of the beliefs that he does.
Couldn't be that it pays well?
He so desperately wants to shift the burden of proof.
Denomic possession?
That's the kind of slip I'd make 😂😂😀
I thought I learned a new word today : (, he said it more than once with such conviction! ; )
3 times. Maybe RR has a bit of dyslexia. Are you aware of it Stephen?
Christians love to claim that their invisible friend is all powerful, and all wise
but cannot explain why he allows Satan, his mortal enemy, to torment his beloved children.
That's stupid.
@@basildraws also, did he miss a word after the 3:52 "denomic" or am i just not hearing it right? Was it "Let's now [.......] the burden of proof"?
@@irrelevant_noob it’s his accent. He didn’t say let’s ‘now’ ... the burden of proof. He said lets ’nail’ the burden of proof. Nail. Nay-owl. Nowl.
*"De-MO-nic"* not De-Nomic. Ok.
💓 your videos, btw.
Thank you guys for my copy of Debunked. I’m not playing the game yet I’m just reading through the cards trying to educate myself. It’s exactly what I was hoping for.
Thank you for supporting the Kickstarter, Tim
That beginning of the video is really something, huh
Scary movie 2 if I remember correctly.
From the thumbnail i thought craig really debated tyson.
He already got kinda destroyed when he debated Sean Carroll, I doubt he’ll be debating another scientist any time soon.
Nobody wants to debate him anymore.
It's waste debating Graig...
Craig has no testable evidence for his belief. His god is invisible and unknowable and needs money.
Nuff said.
Religious apologetics always share that annoying slippery quality. Like a second hand car salesman.
Edit: Of course difference is cars exists.
Occult practices are "real" just as the practice of religion is "real ", its just that they have no basis in reality.
Craig is repetitive, tedious and boring.
His smarmy style is the main thing he has going.
Throughout all of his main debates with Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, and now Tyson, WLC has argued the exact same points every time. Even after being debunked and unpacked, WLC's arguments remain. It's as if he has the inability to learn new things while accepting what he believes may be incorrect.
Edit: I know Tyson and WLC were not specifically debating. I just mean the argument.
@@PittsburghSonido ... or maybe just because someone responds to an argument doesn't mean they've refuted it and Craig is entitled to hold his position if he doesn't find their arguments convincing.
@@andrewwells6323
That may be correct in some instances but for someone in Craig's position, who makes argumentative claims and alleged refutations he should be held to a standard that any philosopher or other debater would be in defending a position.
Craig fails and fails hard.
@Yacine
Has he indicated specifically in which ventricle or is it an omni cardiac presence? 😏
@@Igbon5 He should but people on the internet hold him to a far higher standard than any other debater, because have emotional problems with and bias against what he says.
*"Craig fails and fails hard.
"*
Example?
You kept saying "denomic" rather than "demonic." 😀
Great video though. 👍🏾
it shows that im still subbed to you, but i havent gotten a notification nor have any of your vids shown up on my front page for at least a year now.
I blame Zeus ;)
Is WLC gay? Is my radar misfiring or is it zeroing on to something significant?
William Lane Craig will never concede defeat because his only task seems to be to sow doubt, no matter how absurd, so he can continue earning a living in his field.
I've met theologians more intellectual than he appears to be and always come away feeling that if they hadn't invested a lifetime in these religious careers, they'd have no trouble admitting that it's all rubbish.
I have to wonder if Craig’s misinterpretation of these atheist arguments are genuine misunderstandings or if he is purposely putting up straw men. I’m leaning toward he does it on purpose, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Make it 50/50.
Craig’s condescending delivery is annoying at the best of times but his defense of demonic possession is thoroughly comical. I guess without them there’d be no need for house calls.
"An argument for atheism"
"Belief in atheism"
What? How can someone give an argument that they don't believe in god? Would the entire argument be "I don't believe in God"?
How does one believe in not believing in god/gods? This baffles me...
It seems to be a tactic to try to put atheism of the same level as theism, to distract from the fact that basically all arguments for theism are misdirection of one form or another: "prove that god doesn't exist", "there is no reason to believe that Atheism is true", "There is no good evidence for atheism" etc....are just attempts to muddle the waters and should warrant an automatic disqualification from any form of discourse for violating a fundamental rule of discourse.
May I add, "According to your atheistic world view..."
If you want to see my "world view" come stand where I'm standing.
I never truly understood the word “atheist”. There’s no word for someone who doesn’t believe in vampires.
@@Sir_Osis abloodsucker.. or like how Craig would like to put it - "aaaabloodsucker". It is simple, just prefix with an "a" and according to Craig, you can start a whole new belief system.
Sir Osis If billions of people believed in the existence of vampires and lived their lives based on the vampire bible, there would be.
I’ve had four grand mal seizures in my life but thankfully now my epilepsy is controlled and haven’t had a seizure for over a year now and hopefully my last seizure will be my last. It gripes me that there are people who think this. If he lived centuries ago, this guy would have probably thought it was okay to cut open my head in order to get the demons out (trepanning) and would have been happy to discriminate against me or would have thought I was a werewolf.
A friend of me had at least one seizure a day when he was a child. Than medication was developed that helped him for a long time, when the medication stopped working in his mid 20s he got a neurostimulator (DBS) and he hadnt had a seizure for years now. And that all got developed by science and brave scientists while the church did the same shit they do since hundrets of years, praying for the seizures to stop... and an occasional exorzism once in a while... and we all know how good prayer works.
Paul of Tarsus experienced either a seizure or a stroke on his way to Damascus.
Thanks to him this debate will continue indefinitely.
Hey Steven, would you consider making book recommendation video similar as Alex did? I‘d really like to add more stuff to my reading list:D
100%
"Out of respect for the human intellect" yes
the smug look on their faces
Love you man.
No homo?
for a smart guy, doctor C is very gullible..he would line up to buy a cheap Brooklyn bridge and claim it might be genuine.
Why anyone respects Craig as a "serious theologian" is beyond me. Yeah he's not Ray Comfort or your average "Atheist Experience" idiot caller. But at the end of the day, he's just as vacuous, just as delusional, and just as dishonest.
+how about catholic priest exorcists..what will they do if demons do not exist. ?
this belief issue is also hampering alot of work in the field of neuropsychiatry! it needs to be ridiculed even sometimes
I am an atheist myself, and I find the definition the Stephen given of atheism as nonsense, if lacking believing what makes us atheist than a rock and 🌲 will be atheist, you don't have to have anything to lack it, I don't see any problem saying Atheism is believing that there is no God.
I honestly disagree with your New Atheist, lacktheist take on Atheism, which is more compatible with agnosticism, and the fact that even Cosmic Skeptic still often uses the same definition despite studying philosophy at Oxford, is just weird.
Still, in his case I have noticed he's begun shying away from that view. I guess he finally assumed philosophical atheism.
That's neither here nor there in this case, however I am puzzled by that intellectually lazy burden shifting.
You are essentially doing the same thing as William Lane Craig, albeit to a MUCH lesser degree.
But why would you do it at all?
Especially given it is not difficult at all to defend the position that there is no rational reason to believe in demons and even less so to believe in God.
As a matter of fact, I would go one step further and argue that, in this case in particular, it isn't at all difficult to defend the position that there ARE no such things as demons.
In fact, you kind of did argue just that at moments in this video.
Btw...I'm really not saying this just to be difficult, I merely wanted to make a constructive criticism, as I so often see New Atheists giving fodder to theists, when it is completely not necessary. It's a self-inflicted wound.
The other, definitely more subjective opinion I have on this view is: it's just bizarre to me!
Granted...that might be connected to the way my brain functions, but I cannot comprehend merely lacking belief altogether. If I don't believe demons exist, I have a reason for disbelieving that. Of course, I'm not 100% sure, but regardless...I don't just lack any and all belief about that proposition. When I say: I don't believe in demons, I don't just mean: I got nothin'.
I mean: I thought about it, assessed the evidence and came to belief that demons almost certainly do not exist.
Man...I was just trying to eat some tasty sugar puffs when that first clip started playing. I'm still making my way through the sugar puffs but it doesn't feel the same now.
Here in the USA.. we still have many many church denominations sects that believe epilepsy and other medical conditions are demonic.
My sons mother was a sever grand mal epileptic. Her seizures were so severe that any of them could take her life.. medication did not control them.
One day at a little carnival type fair in our community being put on by some local Pentecostal churches..she and I was passing through decided to play a couple games and get a bite to eat. She unfortunately had a seizure while we are there.. and you would not believe how many of these pastors and other nutcases came over to try to put hands on her and pray and command the demons to leave her.
I use to carry ASP , telescopic baton with a metal head that was also a stun gun. I literally had to bring it out and threaten by force to get these people to leave her alone. They wanted to seize her up to cast out the demons the delusions their religion causes them to believe in.it is at that point where religion is not just harmful to others but themselves..they are no longer attached to reality.
I broke one guys hand with it because he refused to back off. Meanwhile I am trying my best to treat her for her seizure...keep he safe during the seizure and keep her safe from these nut bags.
Religion has not changed or advanced out of this.
I am actually very sorry you had to go through this. It is criminal what heppened.
Imagine coming to and finding out that all those strange men had been laying hands on you... speaking as a woman, that's creepy as fuck. Good on you for sticking up for her.
I have epilepsy (mTLE) , but Ive never had a grand mal seizure, rather focal ones. It doesnt look like what most people think of as an epileptic attack.
It starts with a strong deja vu and progresses from there, but not into a generalised seizure.
You feel extremely sleepy weak and tired after an attack.
The attack knocks me out for 3 dayssometimes, and my memory is obliterated. Like dementia.
Its one of the most common epilepsies.
Just thought to post this to kind of broaden the perception on what epilepsy looks like
Dr Craig looks like old David Lee Roth. I wonder if he wore Spandex in his youth?
LOL...
Twins separated at birth. WLC lost the coin flip.
So was it WLC and not DLR who sang "Running with the devil"??!!!
🎶🎶Ow I got it bad, got it bad, got it bad...I’m hot for Jesus🎶🎶
@@losttribe3001 LOL.
5150 refers to the California law code for the temporary, involuntary psychiatric commitment of individuals who present a danger to themselves or others due to signs of mental illness. It has been more generally applied to people who are considered threateningly unstable or “crazy.”
A few points. Tyson may not have explicitly said that demon possession never occurs, but he implied it by lumping it in with "myths". Secondly, one of the definitions of "atheism" is disbelief, which is separate from non belief. Penn Jillette once wrote an article about how he actively believes there is no God, and he distinguishes that's from not believing there is a God. It's common to use agnostic to as a "not believing, not disbelieving" and atheism to actually believing there is no God.
Ahh scary movie 2 a classic.
The only thing gets me more frustrated than a fundamentalist view of the world, is an apologetic religious person bullshitting people about religion and merge it with some theories of science to prove their point.
I think at a certain point they do know they're wrong and still they are just poisoning the well...
I recently had an online conversation with a Catholic. We both despise Trump and the Evangelical rightwing who support him. But, I made the claim that he could not criticize their faith because what they believe is supported by faith just like his and you cannot argue rationally on the validity of their faith since they also have metaphysical beliefs. He was not pleased and filled his response with micro aggressions like calling me a "devout atheist". LOL!
Mocking him is completely fine. He is the worst kind of stupid: the kind that think they are smart.
"This is not an area of my expertise," … "but I'm going to act like it is" 😆
This guy needs to stop putting words in other people's mouths...
While people are still killed in Africa for witchcraft, this clown acts like it's no big deal.
Shame on him.😑
I like how he says "demonic possession isn't impossible" but doesn't show anything to sustain his claim and says Atheism is false because they don't have anything to disprove a god. I'm like what do you want? A non-foto of a non-existing god? 🤣🤣🤣.
Good one!
@@NeverTalkToCops1 I love when theist don't understand that the only way of disproving god is disproving their arguments of God with logic and observation.
Disproving the existence of god is as hard as disproving the existence of the entire universe. He is invisible and does absolutely nothing while also doing absolutely everything at the same time. No matter how chaotic the world is, it's all according to gods mysterious plan. Oh, kids getting bone cancer? They inherited the sins of their parents. We all are sinners from the very beginning because magic apples. What's that? Thousands of people get killed by a tsunami? They were all created soulless and god just killed them so he can prove his greatness.
Seriously. We don't need to make up an invisible enemy to know that life sucks. Why not just skip a step and say "the universe" instead of god?
@@Depressed_Spider ok "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Do you have any evidence of God or is just You can't disprove it therefore is real? I can't disprove that there isn't a tea pot between earth and Mars. That doesn't mean there is a tea pot...
@@Depressed_Spider "you don't understand something? Put "god" in it!"
Like Reginald Finnely once said “once you believe in the supernatural, anything is a go!”
It says one commet but there is no comment. Hey RR, I'm responding to another video of WLC with Cameron, which is actually a response to you. Maybe check out that video they made?
7:20 Good example of when "lacking belief" becomes an active claim of non-existence. Unless you are going to provide some evidence disproving the existence of demons, then your claim that there is no practice to have an expertise in is as baseless as other's unsupported claims of demons' existence.
9:58 Yes, Tyson did, for all practical purposes, say that possession never occurs. His tone, demeanor, and words all imply that he totally and completely dismisses the idea of possession being something that really happens. You're being intellectually dishonest by pretending otherwise. He may not have literally said the words, but he might as well have.
what Stephen is saying is like being asked to disprove the existence of Unicorns when they were never proven to have existed in the first place
@@ouisellmedia If Tyson or Rules don't want to be asked to prove absurd things, then they shouldn't make absurd claims. Doesn't matter if you claim existence or non-existence, an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim and basically the opposite of passive lack of belief.
@@jayjeckel I get you though I'm just saying RULES isn't making absurd claims but rather acting in response to the absurd claims made already but I'll like to know what the absurd claims RULES is making is?
Please
@@jayjeckel to prove the nonexistence of a thing one would need to debunk a presupposition of existential claims about that thing itself because the burden of proof will be on the proponent of the existence of the said belief to make it true and not the other way round In the first place is all I'm saying.
For some perspective though, I'm a Christian but I totally understand Stephen's argument.
@@ouisellmedia When he claimed that the discipline of demonology doesn't actually exist, implicitly claiming that demons don't exist, which is an active and unsubstantiated claim, as opposed to passively lacking belief in existence of demons.
Considering but a few minutes before he pulled the "atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief" card, I found it humorous how quickly the "lack of belief" idea gets abandoned when not being used to dodge criticism.
The Occult summon dark creatures huh well then we all better hope they don't end up summoning Cthulhu😅 if he ends up being real then we are all screwed.
I sure am not going to swim in the sea anymore.. dont want to run into the kraken
@@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος 😅😅😅
Shifting burden of proof, shifting goalposts, shifting definitions. Apologists can be downright shifty.
So maybe instead of warning people that certain scenes in a film may cause an epileptic fit, we should instead put warnings that this film might trigger demonic possession?
Love your videos but the point on Craig using the definition of atheism wrong is a misunderstanding. Positive atheism is how the word is used in academia, both in theology and philosophy. Just go check Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on atheism and agnosticism.
"Just go check Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on atheism and agnosticism."
Words have uses, not definitions.
People who don't believe in god are atheists. THAT'S how it is commonly used. The tail does not wag the dog. Academia does not decide on how words are used. The general population does. "Gay" has a couple of meanings now because THAT'S how the word is used, not because of something "academia" decided. You also make the mistake of thinking that ALL of academia uses the word the same way, which is silly.
Craig uses the definition that is easiest to attack. He just comes across as a snivelling wimp every time I see him speak. He stumbles through some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard.
One thing to remember is that the philosophical definition of atheism is the belief that no god exists, as such it is most likely that WLC is using that definition rather than the colloquial one when he speaks aboit atheist beliefs and such.
_"If_ we equate myths to falsehoods we need to _expose_ them."
Nice start there, Billy "my name is Dishonesty" Craig.
First off, if don't equate them, then myths are still not true. You are the only one confused about that:"...with respect to demon possession, [stutters] I'm skeptical...". If only you had stopped there and you were truthful.
Second off, why only falsehoods? I mean, you first need to know if it's true or false, don't you? You should have said something along the lines of:" When presented with a story, we should be skeptical and try and think critically. When you're told of magical or miraculous things that have never been verified scientifically, that should be a giant red flag. You don't want to be the gullible moron who says to be skeptical one second and says he believes in resurrection the next."
WLC is one of the most disingenuous people involved in apologetics. Every fallacy he spouts (and he spouts a lot) have been pointed out to him and it's been explained to him why they are fallacious numerous, numerous times. But he just keeps repeating them.
subscribed. keep it up. exmuslim here. would love to see some deconstruction of Islam!
FYI you mispronounced "deMONic" as "deNOMic" a few times.
I'm skeptical that WLC is skeptical about anything.
I'm pretty sure that Craig's brain has been taken over by a wicked demon.
I am quite sure Neil DeGrass Tyson would kick Craig`s mental ass.
Can someone enlighten me on how people who believe in demons and possession view people who commit crimes while claiming to be possessed? How much burden of the crime should be on the demon and how much on the human?
Craig is the king of the straw men, isn’t he? In fact, I might be so bold as to say that Craig is the GOD of the straw men. He has certainly gathered all the straw men together under his control.
* has paranoid schizophrenia *
* performs exorcism *
****DOESN'T WORK****
* calls homecare *
* lets them take care of the job *
"Praise God you were healed!"
(He didn't "heal" me, my meds took control of it.)
A miracle occurs when something unexpected happens.